PMA prints frequently asked questions relating to the FAI paraglider class debate
We reported last month that the Paraglider Manufacturers’ Association, PMA, had called into question whether Ozone’s BBHPP fitted the existing definition of a Class 3 hang glider (paraglider) as having ‘no rigid primary structure’.
The PMA are to recommend to CIVL and the FAI that the definitions of both ‘primary structure’ and ‘rigid’ need to be clarified, and the definition of FAI Class 3 needs to be modified to read: “Hang gliders having a flexible structure (paragliders), and which are able to demonstrate consistent ability to safely take-off and land in nil-wind conditions.
In the PMA’s recommendations, flexibility is defined by the ability of a component to be bent around a radius of 1cm by 180° without being damaged. This test of flexibility will be executed in at least two perpendicular planes and will be performed when the component is integrated into the glider”.
The carbon reinforcements used in Ozone’s BBHPP do not fit this definition of flexible, though all other manufacturers’ Mylar and plastic reinforcements do, pushing the BBHPP into a class (FAI class 6) where it will currently be on its own.
This has sparked a lot of strong feelings and debate, and the PMA have published a list of Frequently Asked Questions.
Ozone’s website also has more information and a video about the BBHPP.
• Got news? Send it to us at news@xcmag.com. Fair use applies to this article: if you reproduce it online, please credit correctly and link to www.xcmag.com or the original article. No reproduction in print. Copyright remains with Cross Country magazine. Thanks!
Subscribe to the world’s favourite hang gliding and paragliding magazine
Related posts:
- Ozone R10: open class competition paraglider Ozone is set to release a new Open Class wing for competition paragliding well in advance of the start of...
- A CIVL debate Cross Country mag will be attending the annual CIVL meeting in Switzerland on 18 - 21 February 2010. We would...
- PMA call for Class 6: a new class of paraglider Paragliding Manufacturers’ Association members voted to ask the world governing body of hang gliding and paragliding, the FAI, to redefine...
- Ozone R10 open class competition paraglider Ozone have released the new Mantra R10 Open Class competition paraglider. Carbon free, it is available in either a 2-line...
- ‘Go Serial Class’ say Paraglider Manufacturers Association Paragliding competitions could be revolutionised following the decision of the Paraglider Manufacturers Association to support Serial Class for FAI Cat...
- Advance Omega 8 serial class paraglider almost ready The long wait for Advance's new high-performance paraglider, the Omega 8, is almost over. There will be four sizes, which...
- Ozone’s unstoppable BBHPP Ozone’s new ‘Baby HPP’ has landed on the competition scene, with immediate results. The world’s first successful 2-line design, the...
- Mike Cavanagh questions the CEN standard: CENsless? Ozone's managing director Mike Cavanagh questions the sanity of the proposed new CEN testing standards. Published in 2002...
January 13th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
This is the text I am sending to CIVL via the UK representative.
The definition of a paraglider – what should the FAI/CIVL do?
Dear Calvo,
I write to you in your capacity as British CIVL representative to express my concerns about the current situation regarding the PMA’s proposal about the definition of a paraglider.
I believe that CIVL should not accept the PMA’s proposed changes to the definition of class 3 hang gliders and should not create a separate class of Paraglider, at this stage.
Quite simply, I believe that the 1cm bending radius for any supporting structures within the wing as proposed by the PMA is a disgraceful attempt to stifle development, aimed at protecting the current positions of the manufacturers which are supporting this proposal. Statements from various manufacturers suggest that safety concerns about the gliders with carbon inserts are at the root of their objections. However, the sort of reinforcement in gliders like the Ozone BBHPP, is not yet proven to present any particular safety issue and so to effectively ban it or marginalise it would be on spurious grounds.
I hope that that every member of CIVL has seen the information and especially the videos made available by Ozone. If they haven’t, please can you ensure that they do. What they will see is, in my opinion totally in keeping with the spirit of what a Paraglider should be, i.e. light, compact, easy to prepare and to pack. It launches, lands, turns, collapses and recovers like other Paragliders. If we are uncomfortable about the current definition of a Paraglider in relation to the technology on the BBHPP, then the definition may need to be changed, but changed in a way which includes these and other innovations, not excludes them.
CIVL has an important role in enhancing safety and I have been concerned for a long time about the safety record at FAI category 1 competitions. It is my belief that the safety equation is a highly complex one and any measures taken in isolation are unlikely to be effective in improving safety. Maybe a massive overhaul of everything about Category 1 competitions, including structure, eligibility to compete, venues, task setting (a key element in my view), scoring and equipment, is needed. There is no evidence that I am aware of that outlawing the technology used on the BBHPP will have any affect on safety.
As a paraglider pilot of almost 20 years, I would be horrified if the self-interest of some manufacturers and speculative fears about safety were allowed to obstruct and possibly finish this line of development. I, like all pilots, have to depend on the bodies, such as CIVL which regulate our sport to protect our future interests. CIVL need to show its strength as an independent body to stand up to the pressure from the PMA.
If CIVL doesn’t have an underlying aim to support the wellbeing AND development of the sport then really what is its point? It is this which is at the heart of why CIVL should not regulate in a way that inhibits the latest exciting developments; it should embrace them.
Kindest regards,
Pat Dower
BHPA member and Competition pilot.
February 10th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
[...] XCmag: PMA publishes FAQs [...]